RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Scrum and Traceability
- Well, Ron does have a talent for stating the obvious.
Which is actually quite a valuable talent, especially in the face of obsfucation and failure to notice the obvious.
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:19:48 -0500
Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Scrum and Traceability
You know, I never thought of that.
Clearly I am far too naive and unschooled to have realized that.
Thank you so so very much Ron, for pointing this out.On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@ acm.org> wrote:Hello, matt. On Monday, March 1, 2010, at 10:45:26 AM, you wrote:Why don't they just tell people how much it'll cost based on knowing
> One of the best reasons for traceability is for planning, particularly in
> mature projects or projects close to release. With traceability, my product
> managers can have a discussion with the team and when they say "I would like
> to change this requirement" or "I would like to modify that operational
> behavior", the team can draw the traceability diagram and let the PM know
> all the things that will need to be retested and validated and estimates can
> be made to determine whether there is adequate ROI for the change. It
> becomes part of the "costing" for the new or changed features.
what they are doing?
I stand for excellence.
I'm tired of people who stand for less. -- Mike Hill
------------ --------- --------- ------To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment- unsubscribe@ eGroups.comYahoo ! Groups Links
To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@ eGroups.com
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/scrumdevel opment/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/scrumdevel opment/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
scrumdevelopment- digest@yahoogrou ps.com
scrumdevelopment- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
scrumdevelopment- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/
Get straight to the Point Find a great deal on your next car.
Couldn't we write the tests such that they don't look like tests, but rather requirements?
With one, and only one formal specification, which also happens to be executable against the actual system, aren't we better off than having to split time between two possibly out-of-sync artifacts?
ThoughtWorks has a testing tool called Twist, which uses something called Business Workflows. And now it has a nestable declarative aggregator called a "Concept" (what a concept!).
Twist is... designed to help you deliver applications fully aligned with your business. It eliminates requirements mismatch as business users directly express intent in their domain language.
I have not used the tool myself. If anyone has, please add some insight.
P.S. I have no affiliation w/ ThoughtWorks.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "woynam" <woyna@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "pauloldfield1" <PaulOldfield1@> wrote:
> > (responding to George)
> > > I feel like a broken record with my questions.
> > I guess I need to learn to answer you better :-)
> > > pauloldfield1 wrote:
> > > > IMHO Traceability, of itself, has no value. However some of the
> > > > things that we DO value may be achieved readily if we have
> > > > Traceability.
> > >
> > > What are those things?
> > Well, I gave you a list of 15 things that some people value.
> > I guess we could take a lead from Hillel's sig line and say
> > they are all various categories of attempting to use process
> > to cover for us being too stupid to be agile.
> > We value knowing that we are testing to see that our system does
> > what the customer wants (but we're too stupid to write the
> > requirements directly as tests)... etc. etc.
> And this continues to irk the sh*t out of me. Why do we create another intermediate artifact that has to be translated by an error-prone human into a set of tests? What does the requirements document provide that the tests don't? Couldn't we write the tests such that they don't look like tests, but rather requirements?
> With one, and only one formal specification, which also happens to be executable against the actual system, aren't we better off than having to split time between two possibly out-of-sync artifacts?
> If you continue to have a separate requirements document, and your tests don't reflect the entirety of the requirements, what mechanism do you use to verify the uncovered requirements? How is that working for you?
> "A man with one watch knows what time it is; A man with two watches is never quite sure."
> > Paul Oldfield
> > Capgemini